Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

June Women in Red focus on GLAM

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A help desk post you might be able to answer

Please see WP:Help desk#data management system for research project, perhaps this project can assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Any GLAM people in Ireland?

We really ought to have someone work with Trinity College to get hires copies of the Book of Kells. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smirkybec:Sadads (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but the main Dublin collections get lots of royalties from their star objects, & I think you will find guard their rights jealously. You can't even photograph in the NMI, never mind Trinity. Commons has isn't too bad, & we can take those one under Bridgeman vs Corel. Maybe see what image size results. Better ones of the Tara Brooch etc (than mine) would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community Ireland have a good relationship with the Library of Trinity, and this is something that has come up in conversation. We are working on this, but it involves a wider cultural change throughout the college (not just the library) so is a longer term project! Not promising when it will happen, but hopeful that we won't be waiting too long. Smirkybec (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Both the NMI and the Library have lifted the ban on photography, and I'm not entirely sure that they make all that much money from royalties. There is a movement to become more open in Ireland generally, especially with institutions that rely on public funding, so fingers crossed we are moving in the right direction! Smirkybec (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That's excellent news, although I imagine you still can't photo the Bk of Kells, or certainly not with flash. I hope you'll encourage Irish Wikipedians to expand the NMI Kildare St Commons category, which has really poor coverage of the collection. Likewise Collins Barracks - the sodding stuffed animals at Merrion St are far better covered, plus of course all the buildings. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right on the Book of Kells, but I'll keep working with them on the overall licensing! I used to work cataloguing those sodding stuffed animals - so they will always be my preference, but point taken ;) Unfortunately with the lighting and glass cases taking better pictures is a challenge, but I will certainly see what I can do even just myself. Smirkybec (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - at the moment several of my 2010 £80 camera pics are still used in articles! Try things mentioned in Prehistoric Ireland & cited to Wallace, Patrick F., O'Floinn, Raghnall eds. Treasures of the National Museum of Ireland: Irish Antiquities, 2002, for the top of the wanted list. A photographing event or competition can work very well in drawing new people out of the woodwork, btw. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Paris Musées 100K image release

Just saw this article: Paris Musées Releases 100,000 Images of Artworks for Unrestricted Public Use (. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

George Elliot Archive

New and inexperienced contributor George Eliot Scholar (talk · contribs · logs) has recently spent some time inserting spam-like links to George Elliot related articles. It appears, however, the site to which the links target is a scholarly work, mostly staffed with enthusiastic undergraduates ([1]). I think this is an opportunity to connect the archive to Wiki projects. Please see the talk page here. How could we best begin that process? BusterD (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on external links that do not include materials but document their existence and location?

Does this project have any guidance on whether participants should add external links that do not include materials but document their existence and location? Many of the contributions of this editor are examples of these kinds of links. I worry that they fall afoul of WP:EL and don't provide readers with very much information beyond "there is a historical archive of physical materials available at [location]" which is only helpful for a very small minority of readers. (I also have very significant concerns that this project runs afoul of WP:COI but that's a separate discussion and likely one that has been held many times.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This has come up before & I agree such links are not much use. Not sure where I'm afraid. Various archives/libraries have tried to get people to add these all over the place. If you are the sort of serious researcher who might actually want to look at archive material there are better ways of finding where it is. Many of the deposits are frankly pretty small. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

How to get statistics on GLAM Wiki images in Wikimedia Commons?

The Archives of Ontario has started its GLAM Wiki project, which includes uploading images from its collections to the Wikimedia Commons.

A question: we're wondering what GLAM Wiki institutions use to track stats on their Wikimedia Commons uploads. We're hoping to find out image views, the geographical location of where people are viewing our uploaded images, and related information. This will help us quantify the value of our project and also decide what types of visual images we should upload in the future.

We've been using GLAMorgan (an example here), but it's not very robust in terms of what statistical information it provides.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historchivist (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Came across this editor American Philosophical Society editor making APS related edits

Please see their user page here. Would be nice if someone would reach out who can assist. They are adding APS affiliations to biographies. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Some food for thought

A video about museums and the internet as repositories of knowledge by a firearms historian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO6F9CfgMg4&t=6s IMHO he makes several points that are highly relevant to this project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Soviet film studio uploaded a large number of full length films to Youtube

Something to interest the Russian scholars, Mosfilm have uploaded a lot of their Soviet era material to Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/c/MosfilmRuOfficial BTW it would be nice to know that someone has read this post, my previous post here has gone unacknowleged for weeks. If posts never get replies it's easy to think this project is dead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The best multi-institutional one-stop search portals?

I have been browsing digitized GLAM collections for years, for wiki editing and for other purposes. I look mostly for artworks. But as these collections became ubiquitous, I am now looking for tools to help me not miss out useful results. So let me ask, based on your experience, what are the most comprehensive digital libraries or art discovery portals? Which ones bridge over European and American collections? Which make their cataloging most systematic and transparent? Are there any sites that enable search by authority controls? Is there a way to know if a certain institution's catalog is included in a certain portal?

I like Europeana, WDL, dp.la, and Wiki Commons. But is there one, of them or another, that can be taken as a gold-standard, or a one-stop shop?

trespassers william (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons is much the best I'm aware of, though the categorization is highly erratic beyond fine art by named artists, & of course not much good for anything in copyright. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Auckland Museum WMF grant application - Wikipedia & compulsory history curriculum

Hi

At Auckland Museum we're looking at ways we can support local teachers, the GLAM sector and the wider Wikipedia movement engage with the upcoming New Zealand history curriculum. We are looking at a two pronged approach: enhancing Wikipedia with local history resources, and encouraging Wikipedia editing by secondary school students as a means of applied learning of historical method. We think this would be beneficial for the education sector, the GLAM sector and would potentially help to grow a new generation of editors.

To start this off we would like to commission some research to see what teachers themselves think about using Wikipedia, and we have put together a grant application here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_and_the_Aotearoa_New_Zealand_History_Curriculum

We would really appreciate community support as we think this has huge potential. Happy to answer any questions or comments here, or my email address is on the grant application page. Jetaynz (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

International Museum Day

Hi there! We at WP's DYK (Did you know) project are hoping to run two full sets of museum-related hooks on the main page on May 18 (International Museums Day). In order to do that, we need hooks! Articles can be suggested if they meet the project's rules. Articles must be nominated within 7 days of being either created, or expanded by 5x (or more). The articles can be about related subjects too – for instance, a piece of art or an artefact held by a museum, a person instrumental in the establishment of a museum, an event (fire, theft, flood, whatever) at a museum, etc. If anyone would like to participate, I'm happy to answer any questions. Just ping me! MeegsC (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

DePuy Total 2,901; Daily 96 --Coin945 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

External links to archive collections

Can anyone point me to policy or discussion as to whether adding an external link to a biography, to show where a person's archives are held in a library or museum, constitutes spam (on the basis that it's promotional of that institution) or is a valid external link? I'm asking here because I'm sure there are people in this project who have discussed this before, and pinging @SilkTork, SBennett SpecialCollections, and Richard Nevell (WMUK): who have participated in a discussion elsewhere. Frances Brody is an example: see its edit history. PamD 07:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping User:PamD. I'm currently looking into the issue of how and when we should be linking to libraries, and how such links can comply with our policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY and Wikipedia:External links. I am discovering that we have several templates that provide links - such as {{Library resources box}}, which is a useful resource, but simply links to books available at a library on the article topic, but does not include unique archive material; {{Archival records}}, which links to unique documents housed in a library (and can call on all libraries which hold such documents if the template is left blank), but does not link to books; and {{Authority control}}, which aims to hold all data on the topic. Looking on the talkpages, Template talk:Library resources box, Template talk:Archival records, and Template talk:Authority control, concern has been raised regarding all three, and there is some uncertainty moving forward as to which should be used, and how. Wikipedia is always evolving, and linking to library material is one area in which we are evolving, though there appears to be no clear consensus on how we do it. Indiscriminately linking to individual libraries is not a solution, and would not be accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. Uploading library links to WikiData appears to be the preferred method, though there appear to be teething problems with {{Authority control}}, which is presumably why {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} have been brought in. I have looked into the Frances Brody situation, and note that WikiData has been uploaded: [2], but does not appear in the article, despite there being an {{Authority control}} template. I wondered if this was due to the WikiData being uploaded under the name Frances McNeil, while the Wikipedia article is under the name Frances Brody, but on doing a test edit on Frances McNeil the {{Authority control}} template remained blank. I am gathering information on linking to libraries with the aim of having a community wide discussion via a RfC on the issue to see where we are, and what we should be doing. Preferably we should be using one system - presumably Authority control and WikiData - which can pull in, in an organised and policy compliant manner, all the relevant data, such as unique documents, and the availability of books in a person's local library. SilkTork (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_39#Request_for_comment_on_finding_aids. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a useful and certainly closely related discussion - thanks Nikkimaria. It does indicate that the community are unsure as to how to appropriately deal with this issue, and that a wider and certainly better attended discussion would be worthwhile. If effective linking to useful online and/or local resources/information is to happen then it needs the community to be aware and to be behind it. I feel that many interesting points were raised, particularly by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Alsee, and User:John M Wolfson. Those three, and a little bit the comment by User:TonyBallioni, seem to reflect some of the issues I have been encountering: a general willingness to include useful links on Wikipedia, but an uncertainty as to how best to judge which links are appropriate, and which method to use to make those links. This is not my area, yet over the past couple of days I have become aware of how powerful and useful Wikipedia:Authority control and Wikidata are, but that many people are not yet aware of these tools. My understanding (and I am still vague on it) is that appropriate use of Authority control and Wikidata should mean that people need not place links to library resources directly on to articles, but, instead, to Wikidata, where it becomes available not only to that article, but also to all related articles and Wikiprojects, and to researchers going direct to WikiData. One main problem is that WikiData is not as easy to upload links to as is Wikipedia. Another is that few people seem to be aware of WikiData, while many are aware of Wikipedia. I think part of what we should be doing is perhaps raising awareness not only of the existence of WikiData and other such aids, but of how to use them, and how to identify their limitations and then address ways of overcoming those limitations. But, first, we need a wider discussion by the community so that knowledge and skills are shared in moving this forward. SilkTork (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

While I still think such aids are best left to {{Authority control}} and Wikidata, I can see how they may be useful for "Further Reading" sections in articles that have them.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There was at least one significant discussion that occurred after that RfC but I can't seem to find it.

If another RfC is opened, I strongly recommend there be a clear distinction between finding aids and archives that include significant amounts of materials that are available online (e.g., large collections of scanned documents, repositories of photographs and other images, extensive summaries and analyses of the subject and materials in the archive) and those that only document the existence of archived materials stored at a particular physical location. My fuzzy recollection of the most recent discussion is that this distinction was very important not only for some editors to determine if the link(s) should be included at all but also the most appropriate section(s) for the link(s). ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that ElKevbo. I agree that making a distinction would be useful. It would be difficult for people to assess the value of an archive when it is not visible, and there are no reliable sources talking about it. SilkTork (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest we need to consider, and distinguish between, several different kinds of links/information for the article on person X, including:
  • A link to an online collection of X's published work
  • The information that X's archive (notebooks, diaries etc) is held at Y Library, with link to the Library's record, either as plain text or using the {{Archival records}} template.
  • A detailed finding aid / list of the individual items held in Y Library's X archive
  • A link to an online collection of X's archival material: digitised manuscripts, photos, etc
  • The "{{Library resources}}" template which links to collections of material by and about X in the reader's chosen library.

PamD 07:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There is also the question of whether a library's own record of, and information about, its holding of X's archive is a Reliable Source for that statement. It has been suggested that because the record is not "independent" it cannot be used. PamD 07:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This last point is nonsense (of a sort one sometimes sees), as far as a neutral summary of holdings is concerned. Librarians are generally a sober lot, but if the marketing dept gets hold, there might be some puffery. In general, only links that lead to online content that is reasonably likely to be of interest to some readers is wanted in EL. A mention of where the main holdings of papers is might be justified in the text, especially for authors. Then a link is ok as a reference. But by the time you have letters (etc) to, letters from, and often letters about, many figures have relevant holdings in numerous libraries, probably with nothing online. Taking User:SBennett SpecialCollections from Leeds Uni Library, who I think I have reverted myself, I think their edit to Joseph Conrad was wrong, but am more sympathetic at Frances Brody, where the subject apparently donated 23 boxes of papers. That could be a line in the article. There is some evident confusion around between library collections of published stuff, and unpublished archive papers etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps library information should be more strongly associated with references, not articles. For example, how about taking advantage of the doi list?--SilverMatsu (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that SilverMatsu. Is Digital object identifier compatible with either Wikidata or Authority control? If not, how does it compare with Authority control? It appears to me that Authority control has established usage on Wikipedia, and is linked to Wikidata, so that would likely be our focus as the driver for a single Wikipedia system of linking to library and other resources (be they books, journals, or unique documents). The aim being that instead of uploading links to library and other resources on individual Wikipedia pages, people uploaded links to Wikidata, and we use the one template, say {{Authority control}}, rather than a variety of templates and individual links. Perhaps merging {{Archival records}} and {{Library resources}} into {{Authority control}}, or if that is not possible, having one template which embraces all three. What we need is an expert on Wikidata to contribute to the discussion when we set it up. SilkTork (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• External links to archive collections: As far as I'm aware, the RFC cited above, Request for comment on finding aids is the most recent and most relevant community position. Links leading to significant useful online content should be generally uncontroversial. My personal vote was to oppose links that essentially say "location X has boxes of stuff", even if there is a detailed list of contents. My reasoning is that essentially none of our readers who click/explore that link will find it useful. Seriously, what is the chance our reader will actually fly/drive there? However I acknowledge the RFC resulted in a small majority in favor of allowing the links. The links are, at minimum, not prohibited. Anyone opposing the links should be given a link to the RFC. They can either accept the result, or they can open a new RFC and present new arguments.
  Authority Control: These links don't go in Authority Control. That template holds "official" identification numbers or identification codes. For example there are a lot of people named "John Smith". The International Standard Name Identifier for John-Smith-the-17th-century-explorer is 0000000080838903, the identifier for John-Smith-the-20th-century-politician is 0000000031466429. I believe there is - or recently was - a discussion at Village Pump regarding Authority Control. A lot of people voted to eliminate it as largely useless, but my impression was that the discussion was leaning weakly towards keeping it.
  Wikidata: Wikidata itself will almost certainly accept these links - they eagerly accept almost anything. However the usage of Wikidata on Wikipedia is hotly controversial. The issues are complex, but basically one faction wants to mass-delete as much content as possible from Wikipedia, move it over to Wikidata, and have Wikipedia articles remotely-display as much Wikidata content as possible. The other faction considers Wikidata content unacceptably unreliable, raise objections to Wikidata's policies and practices, object to external control of our content, and object to deletion disruption dysfunction and data-destruction caused by the efforts to convert everything to Wikidata. The two sides are essentially stuck in a stalemate, with the community unable to reach a decision. For what it is worth, my advice to is not walk into the middle of that conflict. Not only can the disputes get ugly, people lose months of time&work when their edits get reverted by the thousands. If you really want to use Wikidata for something on Wikipedia, I strongly advise running an RFC to get consensus for it first. That will reduce (but not eliminate) the risk that all the work will later be wiped out by an opposed RFC. Alsee (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Alsee - very useful information. The intention is to start a RfC so we can get clarity and a useful guideline. Part of the aim being to allow readers to gain access to further information from libraries, museums, and other sources if they wish, but not to overburden Wikipedia with external links. But mainly to get some clarity and consensus on the matter as I am becoming aware that there is a desire amongst some users toward increasing linking, and a reluctance amongst others to accept the increased level of linking that appears to be happening. While I have an inclination toward reducing clutter and unnecessary linking, I also have a desire to enable readers to have access to useful information where that is available. Like you, I don't see the value of useless information, such as a link to a page which says that an organisation has a box of papers in a locked cupboard in the basement which may only be seen by visitors to the physical location after they have completed some forms to see if they are eligible to view the papers. To my mind, the sort of person who is likely to do that is not going to be the same person who reads a brief general encyclopaedia entry on the topic, but is likely to be someone who is already somewhat knowledgeable on the topic. We wish to keep excessive detail from Wikipedia in order for it to work effectively as a general encyclopedia. Some information and some links are better placed in more specialist publications. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion and, as a librarian who deals with many archival collections, I find I'm in near total disagreement with the opinions expressed above. There are many links to archival collections because it helps people find information. As far as the assumption that people will not travel to view those unique collections, while that is only partially true (many people due actually travel across the country and across the world to find archival collections), people can still contact the owning institution and have a conversation with the staff about the information contained therein. Wikipedia is supposed to be about allowing people find information. When you remove links to unique archival collections, you are not only creating obstacles to finding that information, but you are making the assumption that people won't be interested - I feel that is a dangerous assumption. - kosboot (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved kosboot - it is useful to have input from librarians. Do you feel that libraries which have paper archives would be interested in putting those archives online? Is there a reason why some libraries have not done that? And have you followed the discussion regarding putting links in a central repository like Wikidata rather than manually on individual pages? What are your thoughts as a librarian on that? Do you feel that is a good idea, a poor idea, or would you need more information to make a decision? SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that I don't know much about Wikidata or Authority control or doi or even Curlie, but I am becoming aware of them, and they seem to me (a non-librarian, Wikipedia user and editor) to be a good idea. SilkTork (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm paging @Utl jung: to enter this discussion, since that person has created a template in Wikidata to allow for links to archival collections, although there are many of us. Elsewhere (I can't recall exactly where) there has been extensive discussion about adding external links (in the External links portion at the end of articles) to relevant archival collections; this has occurred years ago. I think there's little question that these are allowed and even encouraged. If someone thinks they are spam then it's a matter of educating them on what research is about. Many institutions—among them American, Canadian, British, Scottish and European—add links to articles when they have an archival collection that is represented by subject of an article. I'm actually surprised that this discussion is taking place, as I had thought and seen that this is a standard practice. - kosboot (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

SilkTork, just responding to the "is there a reason why some libraries have not done that" question: digitization done properly is extremely resource-intensive, and not everything can be made publicly available online. See for example Why don't archivists digitize everything?. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't address that question SilkTork "is there a reason why some libraries have not done that." Not only is it extremely resource intensive (expensive and the resources of creating and storing the stuff) but there's the issue of copyright. At least in the United States (where WMF locates its servers) copyright is essentially 95 years from the year of creation (unless specific permission is granted). Combined with those obstacles, nearly all libraries are terribly underfunded - and you should begin understand the obstacles to "digitizing" everything (which is unlikely to ever happen). - kosboot (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, that makes sense. kosboot, thanks for pinging Utl_jung. As regards "adding external links ... to relevant archival collections...If someone thinks they are spam then it's a matter of educating them on what research is about." That's exactly what the intended RfC will be about. Clarifying when, where, and how to link to useful material, archival or otherwise. And how to square the usefulness of specialised research links with the aims of a general encyclopedia which is not intended to be a central repository of links. There is a tension here, which you are no doubt aware of. I have been spending a lot of time recently in the External links sections of hundreds of articles, and seeing evidence of that tension with hidden notices imploring people to stop adding links, and finding thousands of articles tagged as having excessive external links, some of these articles tagged since 2012: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. This discussion here is not the RfC itself. This discussion wasn't started by me - I was pinged to it - but here is a useful place to start gathering some information and feedback in preparation for the RfC. Having librarians involved in the RfC will be vital, as you folks are aware of the feasibility of linking (such as the difficulty of making some archival material available online). And also discuss the pros and cons of individual libraries manually linking to various articles in Wikipedia against the pros and cons of the same libraries linking to a central resource - whatever it be: Wikidata or otherwise. As far as I can see, it would be more useful for everyone to use a central resource rather than making multiple manual links to individual articles on the 321 language editions of Wikipedia. However, insight into why direct links on Wikipedia are sometimes preferred (difficulty of access to a central resource / non-availability of a suitable central resource / lack of awareness of a central resource), is vital. Thanks for your involvement. SilkTork (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I fear that it might complicate this potential RfC too much but we also need to have a project-wide discussion and come to a consensus about the interplay between WP:COI and the practice of librarians, archivists, and others adding links to their employer's website(s). Some editors might feel differently about links added by editors with a COI than those added by editors independent of the hosting website/institution. ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's something to consider, though I'm probably more relaxed than most about COI. The most damaging COI I encounter on Wikipedia is not paid employees but supporters of a particular item - fans of pop groups, TV shows, footballers, celebrities, etc; and those with political or national or racial points of views, etc. Wikipedia's most biased articles are those which have been written by fans, rather than employees. Difficult to find an article on a pop group which doesn't contain excessive praise, but rare to find one which contains praise and criticism in balance. However, the point is taken that there may be questions of objectiveness when a librarian is posting links only to their own collections. Difficult for others to judge the importance of a collection (particularly one that cannot be seen online). And I'm not sure that it is or should be the responsibility of Wikipedia's volunteers to judge the importance of a collection - that sort of decision is probably best left to experts. What might be useful is if there is a central resource for links, and each link is rateable as on Trip Advisor, so visitors to the collection can leave a mark as to how useful the collection has been. Indeed, even the amount of visitors to a link is useful information. SilkTork (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Kosboot, and thanks all for the discussion so far. I have the following points to offer:

1. I'm seeing common ground here on the desire for clarity around when and where some library and archives-related links are appropriate, generally speaking.

2. Prior to any sort of RfC, this topic would seem to benefit from accessible, documentation on GLAM-related links in order for participating editors to better discuss it. As the thread above has partly shown, whether external links to GLAM are useful or spam in any broad sense in effect entails a whole bunch of questions which aren't so generative when lumped together, and it does take some background knowledge to disaggregate them. I have outlined some such clarifications below. Failures of consensus aren't always disagreements per se; they are just as frequently the result of lack of shared understanding critical to the topic of discussion. Thus many RfCs can still yield little progress if the gaps in understanding persist.

2a. Libraries and archives are distinct things, and some but not all librarians will interact with archival collections. Put simply (too simplistically, even) libraries steward published material and archives steward unpublished material. Here's a rough comparison.

2b. In relation to the library and archive worlds, different templates and external links (either cited or in the External links section) also do different things. For example, authority control in the library world infrastructurally establishes some "thing" as distinct from other "things", sort of like how we disambiguate for the many John Smiths that exist on Wikipedia. I'm seeing that Alsee has touched on this point on authority control. Another example: finding aids look different from institution to institution, and often contain different components (biographies or historical notes, scope and content notes, listed inventory, etc.) depending on authorship and institutional practices. Finding aids are also adapting digitally, so those bulky PDFs that many of us have come to expect over past decades aren't necessarily what finding aids are now or becoming. Regardless of whether any of these functions specifically are appropriate for Wikipedia, these functional differences ought to be understood in the first place for us to have much meaningful discussion on their use.

2c. Wikidata is certainly useful but in ways that are distinct from how Wikipedia is commonly useful. It is probably fair to say that the average Wikipedia user knows what to do with Wikipedia but not necessarily what to do with Wikidata when sent there. A good approach to Wikidata is to see it as standalone infrastructure that complements Wikipedia where there is consensus, more so than any magic bag of things that don't belong on Wikipedia. For example, links to archival collections can certainly live in Wikidata, but they can also be actively useful for Wikipedia users when properly contextualised.

2d. In the vein of [2c], it is fair to point out that it can be confusing for someone who neither understands archival/unpublished material nor intends to use them to follow an externally linked finding aid and find sources that they can't consume right away. This is why it is important to contextualise such links. I created {{Archival records}} for this reason, because for such a link to make sense to someone without context, we should probably identify the holdings and state upfront the uses and limits of archival material--hence the Help:Archival material page which is by default part of the template.

2e. Wikipedia is used for many things, and one of these things is research which extends beyond the user's time on Wikipedia or even consecutive web browsing. Lots of people (researchers, journalists, general enthusiasts, etc.) who access unpublished material for verification and personal/scholarly research purposes get there through Wikipedia. It is simply the case that different sorts of users are visible to different editors, and editors at GLAM institutions often have more to say about those sorts of users because they see them regularly. As Kosboot has already raised, it is indeed dangerous to assume that no Wikipedia user has use for links to archives on Wikipedia.

2f. Wikipedia, after all, is inextricable from a larger knowledge ecosystem which requires people to find, interpret, and produce the very published sources we tend to rely on. Not only, then, are properly contextualised (per [2d]) links to unpublished material sometimes what users need, this has the broader effect of facilitating the very creation and verification of secondary sources which are supposed to anchor every statement on Wikipedia.

3. Given the simultaneous [1] need for shared clarity around various kinds of GLAM-related links and [2] the need for accessible documentation as basis for discussion, I suggest that as an alternative to a plain RfC, we start with a set of draft guidelines around the various uses of GLAM-related links, then bring that to an RfC. This way, we can keep discussions specific and lessen the burden on GLAM-informed editors to explain as we go. I will happily take point on an initial draft for broader collaboration if others on this thread are happy with such an approach, and welcome input on what templates and examples ought to be explained. Ideally, we will still keep the frame and verbiage of the guideline open since this is something that all of us editors (GLAM-based or not) are still figuring out. --Utl jung (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bravo @Utl_jung! - kosboot (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for summing this all up so very well! AmandaRR123 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for organizing the drafting of guidelines for links to archives. I actually had a student add links once, and many of her edits were reverted because another editor viewed them as spam. I have also added many links to findingaids as part of my job, but now we focus on improving pages. In my opinion, archives with digital resources are much more useful than an analog archive, but archival links could be useful. In a few instances we have used the metadata in a findingaid as a source (sometimes they contain helpful biographical information). I created a special cite archival metadata reference template for that (mostly copying off of another metadata reference template), but it seems like most people use the cite url template these days. We have the authority control templates for linking to an author's many authority records. Could we make something similar for archival holdings? There are already databases of where archives are (Like Social Networks and Archival Context, or SNAC), but many people are not aware of them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

An undeclared conflict of interest which ought to be a GLAM project

See this notice at COIN regarding someone seemingly at Labor Archives of Washington Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Think big! Open letter about Wikimedia Commons

GLAM work (often) means: Wikimedia Commons. Hardly any workshop in a museum or library works without images. Some GLAM people even deal with bulk uploads of files.

It is no secret that our media platform is in crisis. It needs improvements right now, but also a vision for the future.

Do you agree? And do you want to show the Wikimedia Foundation that you really care about Commons? Please have a look at our open letter and consider to sign. Ziko (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)